Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas [2022] NSWCA 183

Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas [2022] NSWCA 183

Leave to appeal was refused because Holcim did not identify an error of law. The Commission had found as a matter of fact that the bilateral digital hearing aids were reasonably necessary as a consequence of Mr Thomas's 1999 deemed injury, being the 14.8% binaural hearing loss notified to Holcim. Section 17 did not require Mr Thomas to give notice of any further hearing loss injury to ACI Operations, and Holcim remained liable for compensation in respect of the 1999 injury if the s 60 requirement was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Personal Injury Commission / Court of Appeal
Outcome
Summons filed 11 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
["boilermaker's Deafness" 'hearing Aids' 'section 60 Medical Expenses' 'section 17 Deemed Injury' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law']
['workers Compensation' 'personal Injury' 'appellate Procedure'] ["boilermaker's Deafness" 'hearing Aids' 'section 60 Medical Expenses' 'section 17 Deemed Injury' 'leave to Appeal' 'question of Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Personal Injury Commission / Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a worker who gave notice of hearing loss injury to Holcim in 1999 could recover the cost of replacement hearing aids from Holcim in 2020 despite further hearing loss and subsequent noisy employment with ACI Operations.' 'Whether s 17 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) required the worker to give notice of a further hearing loss injury to a later employer before recovering s 60 medical expenses from the earlier employer.' "Whether the Deputy President's confirmation of the finding that the hearing aids were reasonably necessary as a consequence of the 1999 injury disclosed any error of law warranting leave to appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Holcim did not identify an error of law. The Commission had found as a matter of fact that the bilateral digital hearing aids were reasonably necessary as a consequence of Mr Thomas's 1999 deemed injury, being the 14.8% binaural hearing loss notified to Holcim. Section 17 did not require Mr Thomas to give notice of any further hearing loss injury to ACI Operations, and Holcim remained liable for compensation in respect of the 1999 injury if the s 60 requirement was established.

Court Disposition

Summons filed 11 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons filed 11 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.']